timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Is it a fact that it was "unusually large?"You should have read the rest of the article.Four people with contemporaneous knowledge of the encounter said it had taken place in the context of a work outing during which there had been heavy drinking — a hallmark, they said, of outings with an organization that represents the hospitality industry. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid being publicly drawn into the dispute, and declined to provide details of the encounter, saying they did not want to violate the privacy of the woman.Two of them said that other factors had been involved in her severance, and that other workplace issues had been making her unhappy at the association as well. But they said the encounter with Mr. Cain had added an emotional charge and contributed to the size of her payment. One former colleague familiar with the details said such a severance was not common, especially for an employee with the woman’s relatively short tenure and her pay grade.Is it a fact that she signed the agreement "in order to" receive said payment?It appears so.Mr. Bennett [the woman's lawyer] made a point of referring to the arrangement with his client as a confidential “settlement agreement.” His call for the restaurant association to drop the confidentiality clause was first reported by The Washington Post.So it was the restaurant who demanded the confidentiality agreement. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Ah the joy of the left going after a black man over sex.Because every lawsuit is always settled based on facts, and confidentiality clauses are to protect the guilty. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Ah the joy of the left going after a black man over sexual harassment.Just to be accurate, fixed yer post. Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 You should have read the rest of the article.I really don't want to read anymore than I have to.It appears so.Mr. Bennett [the woman's lawyer] made a point of referring to the arrangement with his client as a confidential “settlement agreement.” His call for the restaurant association to drop the confidentiality clause was first reported by The Washington Post.So it was the restaurant who demanded the confidentiality agreement.Is the confidentiality clause limited to only her? Is Cain allowed to talk about all the details?Note: I've obviously not been paying any attention to this. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I just yesterday received a check for a settlement with a confidentiality agreement attached to the check.I am willing to agree that the 'laws' or wrongs done by the other side is worth less to me than $x amount of money.What would it say about me if I took the money, signed the agreement, then came out 20 years later saying my conscience is demanding I speak out?Besides saying I am a typical liberal who only believes in honesty when it suits my needs Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Is the confidentiality clause limited to only her? Is Cain allowed to talk about all the details?Note: I've obviously not been paying any attention to this.I hadn't been either, until I just read that article today.Cain said he has to check with his lawyers as far as discussing any details, or something like that. But the woman's lawyer (who one would hope and expect is acting in the interests of his client) is pushing for the confidentiality clause to be lifted, implying that the clause is protecting Cain/the restaurant association, not the woman. Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I hadn't been either, until I just read that article today.Cain said he has to check with his lawyers as far as discussing any details, or something like that. But the woman's lawyer (who one would hope and expect is acting in the interests of his client) is pushing for the confidentiality clause to be lifted, implying that the clause is protecting Cain/the restaurant association, not the woman.Or he's saying that to make it look like she's totally innocent of anything knowing that it wouldn't be lifted anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I just yesterday received a check for a settlement with a confidentiality agreement attached to the check.I am willing to agree that the 'laws' or wrongs done by the other side is worth less to me than $x amount of money.What would it say about me if I took the money, signed the agreement, then came out 20 years later saying my conscience is demanding I speak out?If the party who committed those wrongs decided to run for President and actually had some potential chance of winning, wouldn't it possibly change how you thought about it? Isn't it possible that you'd want the public to know about those wrongs, before voting him into the highest office in the country?Or he's saying that to make it look like she's totally innocent of anything knowing that it wouldn't be lifted anyway.I don't see how he could know that it wouldn't be lifted. Wouldn't it simply take an agreement by both sides for it be lifted? Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 i think it shows how poor the republican party is right now...it is sad. We have BHO sitting in the whitehouse right now - ready to take his spot in the top 5 of worst ever and this sorry group is the best we can muster up to run against him... WTFObama has been massively beneficial for the Republicans. On nearly every major issue he has sided with the Republicans, yet thanks to the conservative propaganda machine they still are able to demonize him no matter what he does. Every time Obama caves in to the Republican position the Republicans massively benefit(and he usually does). They get what they want, and just as importantly, they get to blame Democrats for the problems their policies cause. They would be insane to run a strong candidate against Obama since he gives them most of what they want. Politically it is better to get most of what you want with no blame than to get all of what you want but have to take responsibility for the consequences. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Obama has been massively beneficial for the Republicans. On nearly every major issue he has sided with the Republicans, yet thanks to the conservative propaganda machine they still are able to demonize him no matter what he does. Every time Obama caves in to the Republican position the Republicans massively benefit(and he usually does). They get what they want, and just as importantly, they get to blame Democrats for the problems their policies cause. They would be insane to run a strong candidate against Obama since he gives them most of what they want. Politically it is better to get most of what you want with no blame than to get all of what you want but have to take responsibility for the consequences.Its genius, destroy the country AND blame the democrats.Why its everything republicans want in this world. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Its genius, destroy the country AND blame the democrats.Why its everything republicans want in this world.Remember back when you agreed with me on this point? http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=3494983I doubt your position has changed. You just disagree to be argumentative or get in another lame joke. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Well if there is one thing the left is sure of, its that just because rouge radical muslim nations with money and weapons have been a bad thing every single time in the past, maybe this time they will turn out different.because invading them works out so well for us politically and monetarily?muslim countries with money and weapons are bad does not equal we should invade. You can't be this obtuse. Isn't it enough that Bush and Cheney handed Iraq to Ahminajejad on a silver platter? Haven't the neo-cons done enough damage? Hasn't Obama's overwhelming foreign policy success taught you that sneaky attacks taking advantage of our elite military units are much more productive than full-scale occupations?I think what bothers you most about Obama is he is so much better at killing our enemies than Republicans are. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 That has nothing to do with the facts presented in the article. An unusually large payment was given to the woman, who signed a confidentiality agreement in order to receive said payment. Fact.35k is not unusually large. in my dealings it would be less then the legal fees plus you free your time back up to run the business that feeds everything. The sad fact is that it is often foolish to fight. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 35k is not unusually large. in my dealings it would be less then the legal fees plus you free your time back up to run the business that feeds everything. The sad fact is that it is often foolish to fight. The bolded is certainly true. But the article quotes the woman's lawyer, as I already quoted above:“He’s basically saying: ‘I never harassed anyone. These claims have no merit,’ ” said the lawyer, Joel P. Bennett of Washington, who represented the woman in her initial agreement. “And I’m sure my client would have a comeback to that.”I also quoted the part of the article that suggests that this payment was unusually large in this particular situation. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 35k is NOT a large settlement.However, the fact that there was a settlement paid automatically means that there is more than "nothing" to this story. And if innocent until proven guilty applies to Cain, then the same standard should go to judging this woman's truthfulness. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,320 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 35k is NOT a large settlement.However, the fact that there was a settlement paid automatically means that there is more than "nothing" to this story. And if innocent until proven guilty applies to Cain, then the same standard should go to judging this woman's truthfulness.The $35K is being reported as one year of her salary. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The $35K is being reported as one year of her salary.That's nothing compared to what a proven harassment claim would net. Just saying. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 That's nothing compared to what a proven harassment claim would net. Just saying.damn something we can agree on!! There is hope for you Cane, you are going to turn into a closet conservative before you know it! Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 damn something we can agree on!! There is hope for you Cane, you are going to turn into a closet conservative before you know it!what the hell? Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 what the hell? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 what the hell?I don't know.in other news: http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-w...-195748722.htmlDems are really working overtime to find actresses to make this stuff up....edit: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...involving-cain/now the Democrats and the media are making Republican pollsters lie about Herman Cain. When will the liberal bias end? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I just hope Ron Paul knows the rest of the GOP will "Bartman" him forever. I think some of his positions are completely crazy but he's consistent and he was the only person smart enough to be vocally against the Iraq War from the very beginning. I'd hate to see him fade into complete obscurity like Nader, completely despised for "allegedly" handing Obama a second term (I think Obama is a huge statistical favorite either way----and I'm pretty sure Chris Christie will run away with the 2016 race assuming America will vote for a fatty.)Ron Paul is retiring when his term is up, I don't think he cares about the Republican party so much anymore.I don't agree with him completely, but he's far better than anyone else who has reached double digits. The rest of the clowns aren't competent to clean my bathroom much less run the federal government. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Ron Paul is retiring when his term is up, I don't think he cares about the Republican party so much anymore.I don't agree with him completely, but he's far better than anyone else who has reached double digits. The rest of the clowns aren't competent to clean my bathroom much less run the federal government.You are so right, now the Perry and Romney campaigns are blaming each other for the leaks about Cain. Cain so far doesn't seem to be losing support. What a ****ing disgrace!! Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 And if innocent until proven guilty applies to Cain, then the same standard should go to judging this woman's truthfulness.silly Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 edit: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...involving-cain/now the Democrats and the media are making Republican pollsters lie about Herman Cain. When will the liberal bias end?Dude is totally looking to grab some boobs: Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now